Satchel Paige Rookie Card [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

10-15-2006, 03:16 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPaige had his first Bowman card in the 1949 set and his first Leaf card in the 1948 set - which was actually released in 1949 as we know, despite the 'copyright 1948' on the reverse. Which card is presumed to be his rookie card, and why? Thanks in advance for the help.

Archive

10-15-2006, 03:22 PM

Posted By: dennis<a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/oddrook.html#p" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/oddrook.html#p</a>

Archive

10-15-2006, 03:25 PM

Posted By: dennisi always thought it was the leaf because of the 48 copy and the scarcity!

Archive

10-15-2006, 03:53 PM

Posted By: RhysI think the opinions of the 1948 Leaf being issued in early 1949 are probably correct from the experiences of some of the older members of this forum who actually opened packs etc. However, since the Paige 1949 Bowman came out in the "High Number" series which presumably came out late in the year, You could probably come to the conclusion that the Leaf was issued first. I would personally call the 1948/49 Leaf card the Rookie unless the information I gave above is not correct for some reason. Rhys

Archive

10-15-2006, 04:14 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think Ted is the guru on these sets; Ted, I'm curious what you think. Rhys, your explanation makes sense. I suppose timing alone is the determinative factor on what card is the rookie card and if the high numbered Bowmans came out later in the year than the Leaf may be the correct rookie card for Paige.

Archive

10-15-2006, 04:56 PM

Posted By: Steve DawsonThe new issue (#9) of Old Cardboard has a good article about the Leaf set, written by Ted Z. In it he says: "Speaking about Paige, there is an ongoing debate as to which card is his true rookie card, the Leaf or the Bowman? This author's opinion is that the Leaf Paige was first in the Marketplace. The Bowman Paige card was not available until the Fall of 1949 when the last series of Bowman's high-numbered cards were available in the stores. By then, Leaf had introduced its football set nationwide and the Leaf baseball cards would have been depleted from the store shelves several months before." Steve

Archive

10-15-2006, 05:02 PM

Posted By: JimBSince they both came out in 1949, I would consider them both rookies. To me it would be just like saying that 81 Topps, 81 Donruss, and 81 Fleer of X player are all the rookie cards of that player despite the fact that they were not all released on the same day in 1981. I realize that coming out within a few weeks of each other is different that coming out six or eight months apart, but I still would consider all 1949 Paige cards as rookie cards. Just one man's opinion. In the name of full disclosure, I own a '49 Bowman Paige, but not a Leaf. JimB

Archive

10-15-2006, 05:12 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI agree with Jim that if they both came out in the same year, they're both rookie cards. There are multiple rookie cards for Cal Ripken Jr, Ryne Sandberg, etc. If someone's concerned with getting the first card, that is legitimate but a different issue.

Archive

10-15-2006, 05:16 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI haven't yet gotten my Old Cardboard; and find it very bizarre that I had this issue pop into my head - and asked for Ted's advice - without knowing that Ted had written an article about it which should be on my doorstep in a day or so. I'm thinking that I need to get some additional hobbies.

Archive

10-15-2006, 05:30 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackJeff has the psychic power to predict the future. But the extent of his power is predicting what articles will appear in the next Old Cardboard.

Archive

10-15-2006, 05:49 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisHi guys......I'm visiting with Barry Sloate and we are having lot of fun going thru his T206 Sovereign "find". So, now my mind has to switch to post-war things to resolve your debate....the 1949 LEAF Paige was definitely issued before the 1949 BOWMAN Paige. But, why take my word for it.....you can read my story on the 1949 LEAF BB card set in this current issue of OLD CARDBOARD.....and you can decide for yourself. Hi Everyone- I have nothing to add to this discussion but just wanted to make this the first post jointly shared by two network54 friends. One for the record books. Regards, Barry

Archive

10-15-2006, 09:58 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisNow that I am back home and have a chance to read all your posts, I must correct several posts stating that the Copyright date on the Leaf Paige card is "1948"........ The actual date is 1949. <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/paigeb.jpg">

Archive

10-16-2006, 05:12 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanSo, Ted, that means that the Paige Leaf card was actually produced in the last batch of that Leaf set itself - as many of the cards in the set had the "1948" copyright date in the back. So, while that set was released actually in 1949, does the 1949 date on the Paige card suggest a late 1949 release date?

Archive

10-16-2006, 05:16 AM

Posted By: barrysloateSuppose they started printing the cards in December, 1948, and were still working on them into January. Would that create two different dates, or is it irrelevant?

Archive

10-16-2006, 06:26 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJEFF & BARRY While, I wish you would wait to read the article, as it explains everything you are asking here......I will answer this, the 1st Series of 49 cards (33 w/1948 CR and 16 w/1949 CR) were all issued in early Spring of 1949. By early summer of '49 the 2nd Series of 49 cards (known as the "scarce Leafs" or "short-prints") were all available. This series CR breakdown is 32 (1948) and 17 (1949). The last Series of the 1949 Bowman High #s (card #s 181 - 240, plus the 12 vari- ations) were issued no earlier than September of 1949. Paige is #224 in this series; and therefore, is definitely his 2nd card. The 1953 Topps Hi# card (#220) is his 3rd card. TED Z

Archive

10-16-2006, 09:07 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTed, thanks for the info. This raises another question, with some already weighing in on this thread: is a player's rookie card determined soley by the realtime release of his first card? Or by the year in which it is issued (thus allowing for the possibility of more than one rookie card). What if Bowman always released a few months after Topps or Leaf? Would that mean that Bowman could never have a rookie card of a player?

Archive

10-16-2006, 09:18 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisALL cards released in the same calendar years are ROOKIE CARDS.

Archive

10-16-2006, 09:29 AM

Posted By: dennisi am always puzzled why a 52 topps mantle is called a "rookie" card...it clearly and w/no questions is not.

Archive

10-16-2006, 09:38 AM

Posted By: James FeaginI may be wrong, but I've always felt that rookie cards are just that, cards released during the rookie year of the player. I guess Paige's card can be considered a rookie, since it was his first year in MLB. However, Mantle's 1952 definitely is not, nor ever will be his rookie. And in a modern sense, Michael Jordan's 1986-1987 Fleer has never been nor ever will be his rookie as well. Those are hobby myths.

Archive

10-16-2006, 09:41 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanWell, obviously the term 'rookie card' is used interchangeably with 'first card issued.' That being said, is the realtime relase what governs? Or the calendar year as Hal offers?

Archive

10-16-2006, 10:07 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThe first card issued for a player could predate his MLB rookie year by a significant margin, and could depict his Minor (or other) league career. A Rookie card should show the player as he appeared during his rookie season, independent of the date of issuance of the card. For example, if Paige's early cards actually were photos taken prior to his first MLB game, then they would be PROOKIE cards. Tying a status of "rookie card" to the time of card issuance does not seem as accurate as tying that status to the time of the photo being taken. IMO.

Archive

10-16-2006, 10:31 AM

Posted By: john/z28jd Hal,do you consider that to be true for newer stuff too such as with Cal Ripken who had 3 regular issue cards released in 1982(topps,donruss,fleer) but also had a 1982 topps traded which was released the same calendar year as the regular issues but obviously much later in the year and is technically his 2nd topps card? I think if one has wording which describes something that happened during the same season it was released then it cant be the rookie over another card released earlier in the year,such as "Joe made his ML debut 6/7/85" and its on a 1985 card.Determining without proof, such as that, is different because something in printing,or copywriting or player/team compensation couldve always held a card back and you wouldnt know it unless you were there or had paperwork saying so. Going by series could always be tricky because if topps waited till last series to release a card as the did up until 1973 then why wouldnt a regional or team issue in April be considered the same thing as the Paige? Thats why i consider Hal's theory to be correct but with an asterisks saying what i said in the paragraph above for later cards

Archive

10-16-2006, 10:50 AM

Posted By: barrysloateWe've debated rookies ad infinitum on this board but if you were a kid growing up in 1949 you would have owned the Leaf Paige (assuming you could find one) months before you even knew that a Bowman card of Paige was going to exist. Even further criteria than which card came out first is necessary because Bond Bread issued a beautiful black and white set with some great photography of Jackie in 1947, but we seem to agree that this is not his rookie card because it was regionally distributed in Brooklyn only. So it is not so simple as to say both are his rookie card. We have to follow certain agreed standards. Then we have a situation like that of Kid Nichols, who appears in the significant OJ set in the late 1880's yet his mid-1890 Mayo is considered his rookie and the OJ his prookie. Again, a different standard of proof.

Archive

10-16-2006, 08:22 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI try not to get caught up in the "Rookie craze", but rather choose to talk about 1st card, 2nd card, etc. This goes all the way back to 1980 when many were "hyping" the 1952 Topps Mantle as his "Rookie card". And, clearly ignoring the 1951 Bowman Mantle. Was this crazy thinking, or what ? Maybe it was due to some sort of "new-math"......where 1952 came before 1951..HA ! The Topps Mantle was selling for $3000 in 1980 and the Bowman Mantle for $200.....that's what I call a real "Rookie craze". Anyhow, here we have 2 of the 25 pictures from the 1948 Cleveland Indians team issue given out at Muni- cipal Stadium. And, indeed from these stadium issued picture packs, the Bowman Gum Co. created most of the cards in its 1949 BB card set. So, my question to you guys....are these 1948 Team issued pictures the "true Rookie" collectibles ? <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/leroypaige.jpg"> <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/adobypaige.jpg">

Archive

10-16-2006, 10:17 PM

Posted By: PaulDoes anyone know what year Satchel Paige's exhibit card was issued?

Archive

10-17-2006, 06:58 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliTed: I was going to mention the 1948 Team Issue of Paige, but didn't want to get caught up in the "is it a card or not?" debate. I just picked up one of those for my collection a couple of weeks ago. I have a very loose definition of the word "card," so I'd throw it into the mix with the Leaf and Bowman issues as well. -Al

Archive

10-17-2006, 09:21 AM

Posted By: warshawlawDon't know precisely when his Exhibit was issued; the style is the earliest post-war style, though. And he appears in the 1949-issued Exhibit team card.

Archive

10-17-2006, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Mark"We seem to agree that this is not his rookie card because it was regionally distributed in Brooklyn only." I for one do not agree a regionally distributed card cannot be a rookie card. Wouldn't that mean that would mean most or all T206 backs and e cards could not be rookies?

Archive

10-17-2006, 10:23 AM

Posted By: barrysloateMark- that's a good point and it just shows that the definition of a rookie card is a bit amorphous. I've always defined a rookie card as "if you own it it's the rookie card, but if the other guy owns it and you are trying to buy it from him, it's not." In the case of T206 vs. Bond Bread, the tobacco issue in total was probably distributed across a fairly wide area of the country, whereas Brooklyn (albeit the greatest city in the world) is kind of specific to where Jackie played. But cards like Nadja (St. Louis) and Tango Eggs (New Orleans) are awfully specific too. In the end, I think we should form a committee to decide what is the true rookie card of each player. I nominate Hal Lewis as committee chairperson as he studies this as much an anyone. Anybody second the nomination?

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:10 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisBARRY Let's not forget this 48 card set, also issued by Bond Bread in 1947. It was distributed nationwide (or at least from the Atlantic to the Mississippi River). I don't want to elaborate here on this set of cards (as we have had several prior Threads on this subject); but, Jackie Robinson, Stan Musial, Yogi Berra, Gil Hodges, Bobby Thomson and more BB players, are pictured in this set for the very 1st time. Which has thrown the coventional wisdom "out the window", regarding so-called "ROOKIE" cards. Incidently....getting back on topic....does anyone out there have an exhibit card of Leroy Paige......if so please show us this card ? In my opinion, this card must have been issued in 1948 or 1949. He was too popular those years not to have an Exhibit issued of him very early. I remmember inserting many, many pennies in the Exhibit Vending machines down at the Jersey shore trying to get as many American Lge. players of that era. However, I don't recall acquiring a Paige.

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:30 AM

Posted By: MarkBarry - I guess the rule, as you expressed it, is slightly different than I have heard it before. I thought Hal's rule was that a card had to be "nationally distributed" rather than merely "not regionally distributed." Either way, does the rule preclude a 1936 WWG Joe DiMaggio from being his rookie since it presumably wasn't issued in any U.S. state? What is Hilton Smith's rookie, his 1948 Toleteros or his first widely distributed U.S. issue? 1975 Topps Minis were only distributed on the West Coast, but I've never heard anyone state they were ineligible for rookie card status. I would also think T206 should be viewed as multiple issues, rather than one big issue, depending on the back (issuer). Still, I would regard regionally released t and e cards distributed in New Orleans as rookie card eligible. To sum up, non-regional distribution is not part of my definition of a rookie card. I think it leads to odd results contrary to what the hobby has come to regard as rookie cards. I also do not understand why in theory the distribution should make a difference.

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:33 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI don't require "National" distribution until 1948, at which time Bowman and Leaf were the FIRST to really ever do it. To require it BEFORE then would rule everything out.

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:38 AM

Posted By: Jeff DrumI guess it's a good thing he didn't have a 1947 Exhibit. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:51 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisTo the contrary... if he had a 1947 exhibit, I would have bought THAT CARD long ago and saved a TON of money!

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:54 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackEven in modern days (as opposed to when Ted was buying them fresh), the Paige is much harder to find than the other Exhibits, so it would seem it was only issued for a short time, perhaps only a year. A number of years ago a dealer who specialized in Exhibits told me the Paige was much rarer that collectors or the price guides realize. And since then, I've notice how infrequently you see the card.

Archive

10-17-2006, 12:36 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisWe know that the post-WWII exhibits range from 1947 to 1966 (according to Price Guides). While I am not suggesting that the Paige exhibit came out in 1947....it is not impossible. As a kid and an avid American League fan (primarily the Yankees), I recall the excitement that Paige generated amongst us kids. Before he came up to the Majors in 1948, he was getting a lot of publicity and coverage in the Sporting News. And then, when he was a force in the AL Championship for Cleveland, he was just as popular and received as much attention as Jackie Robinson was in 1948. His exhibit card (whether 1948 or 1949) was more than likely regionally distributed in the Ohio area and was probabily somewhat short-printed. Remember, he pitched for Cleveland only in 1948 and 1949. He was not in the Majors in 1950. Then, he came up with the St Louis Browns and pitched with them from 1951 to 1953. And yes, he made a 1 game appearance with the KC A's in 1965 at the grand old age of 60.

Archive

10-17-2006, 09:05 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJEFF L....and to all others interested.... In response to your post....10/15 (7:12)......No, the 1949 date does not indicate that the card was necessarily issued in the 2nd Series (short-prints). However, the Paige card is indeed in this Series. Jeff, if you just disregard the CR dates on the backs of the 98 cards in this set, you will find it less confusing. As I have written in the Old Cardboard article, the two different dates just simply tell us when Leaf Gum received the "Rights" and Copyrighted the Bio info on the particular BB player pic- tured on the card. I just wish that Leaf had never printed the 2 CR dates on these cards, this has "haunted" the hobby for all these years......But, then how were they to know 57 years ago that they would cause all this confusion ? T-Rex TED

Archive

10-17-2006, 11:10 PM

Posted By: PaulIt turns out I had the answer to my own question. There was an article published many years ago in SCD, and discussed more recently here, explaining how to date exhibit cards. The Paige has "MADE IN USA" and "AN EXHIBIT CARD" in all caps. That makes it a 1949. I see Frank Ward listed this same information in another thread. I didn't copy him. Honest.

Archive

10-18-2006, 06:50 AM

Posted By: warshawlawNot that I really care <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> There are a number of early postwar Exhibits that are really hard to find: Paige, Spud Chandler, Appling w/an exhibit card, those come to mind right now. All were made in the first few years for short periods.

Archive

10-18-2006, 05:17 PM

Posted By: darren<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1161127048.JPG">

Archive

10-19-2006, 11:20 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThanks PAUL & DARREN For the info and the pix. So, now we have THREE cards of Satchel Paige issued in 1949. I am glad I don't collect "ROOKIE" cards......"this could be a revolting development" ! OK, you Trivia guys.......who used to say that on a TV show ? T-Rex TED

Archive

10-19-2006, 11:27 AM

Posted By: barrysloateChester A. Riley, as well as a variation of it by Jimmy Durante. And what two actors played Riley on TV?

Archive

10-19-2006, 11:31 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJackie Gleason and William Bendix Regards, TED Z

Archive

10-19-2006, 11:35 AM

Posted By: barrysloateGleason played him in 1949, the year of the Paige rookie! Actually, it wasn't a great vehicle for him. I saw a number of episodes in rerun and they weren't all that funny.

Archive

10-19-2006, 11:37 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisNot revolting at all, Ted. Rookie Card collectors don't collect ALL rookie cards of a player... just whichever they prefer. I don't need a Fleer or Donruss when I already have a Topps, etc.

Archive

10-19-2006, 12:14 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisHAL I think you were the very 1st on this Forum to accept my arguments regarding the Leaf Paige as the 1st card. It was the very 1st post I entered in this Forum; about 1 1/2 years ago. I appreciate your support. Incidently, have you read my 1949 Leaf article in this issue of OLD CARDBOARD ? If so....you will be tested....HA ! TED Z

Archive

10-19-2006, 12:20 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisNot yet, still waiting for mine to arrive! PS - You should know that the brand new Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards does NOT call them 1948-49 Leaf cards any longer! Because of our discussions and your memory... they are now CORRECTLY referred to as only "1949 Leaf" !! And yes, your memory of the Leaf cards coming out earlier in the year than the Bowmans is nice to know for sure!!

Archive

10-19-2006, 12:21 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisThey have also finally corrected the book so that the N28 Allen & Ginters are correctly noted as "1888" !!

Archive

10-19-2006, 12:45 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisHAL Wow, that is real progress. Now, if we can get the the year changed for the N162 Goodwin Champions set. I am convinced that it was issued in 1889 (not 1888). I base this on information I have regarding the Fred Dunlap card, the Henry Beecher (FB) card, and the R.D. Sears (Tennis) card. Plus my N162 Album (A36).....which is dated 1889. Hal....thanks for informing me of these corrections. T-Rex TED

Archive

10-19-2006, 12:48 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisJust e-mail it to the new editor (he posted on here a week ago) and I have no doubt that the change will be made next edition! His e-mail is: don@virtualcrate.com His name is Don Fluckinger

Archive

10-19-2006, 12:50 PM

Posted By: barrysloateHey Ted- what about my N162 Dunlap, Detroit? That would date the set to 1887, his last year with the team.

Archive

10-19-2006, 01:26 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisBARRY HA !......It vanished into "neverland"....as did the infamous Johnny Pesky "NOF variation" (from the 1949 Bowman set). T-Rex TED

Archive

10-19-2006, 01:30 PM

Posted By: barrysloateFor those reading this and don't realize that Ted and I are just having some fun, the Dunlap, Detroit is one of those cards that was purported to exist but actually doesn't. The same is true for "pesky" Mr. Pesky.

Archive

10-19-2006, 03:36 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisBARRY But, Keith Olbermann is still searching for "mr pesky" in Never-Neverland...... what a skeptic he is.

Archive

10-19-2006, 03:39 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDon't pick on my buddy. I think he realizes that Mr. Pesky has no name by now.

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:18 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI was reviewing the posts on this Thread and your...."I haven't yet gotten my Old Cardboard; and find it very bizarre that I had this issue pop into my head - and asked for Ted's advice - without knowing that Ted had written an article about it which should be on my doorstep".... was more than "very bizarre", it was pure Extra Sensory Perception. I keep a log of "ESP" events like these, as I have experienced them from time to time. Some of them much more significant than this one. Anyhow, did you receive your Old Cardboard, yet ? Ted Z

Archive

10-21-2006, 07:54 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesDon't you know?

Archive

10-21-2006, 08:07 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTed, I still have not. By the time I finally get it I'll probably have bought every possible Paige rookie card just to cover all of the bases. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I am looking forward to reading your article!